Belief or denial: still the bottom line in climate politics

The climate change debate may be getting warmer with much hot air expended over who should and should not say "Yes"; but the real question for those who want action is "do you accept the science?"

More than party political affiliation, a belief that climate change is real is the key determinant of whether or not someone will support the Federal Government’s carbon price.

It stands to reason really; people who do not accept the science will be hard-pressed to be convinced of the need to pay more for carbon-based products – regardless of any compensation package.

Q. Do you support or oppose the Government’s recent announcement to introduce a carbon pricing scheme from 1 July 2012, which will require industries to pay a tax based on the amount of carbon pollution they emit?

Climate Change is happening

It’s just a fluctuation

Total support

38%

60%

13%

Total oppose

48%

24%

80%

Don’t know

15%

16%

7%

The problem for the Government was that, as it lost control of the debate belief in the science plummeted, dropping below 50 per cent by the end of last year.

Climate science became the missing player in the Global Warming debate, in the face of a concerted political and media attack by the denier movement. If you want an indication of why respected scientists are reluctant to put their heads-up have a listen to the treatment shock jock Alan Jones meted out to Professor David Karoly last week.

One of the problems science faces is it is a sceptical discipline; its language and structures are geared for critique and revision. To a scientist, 95 per cent proof is certainty; to an activist sceptic that gives them 5 per cent wriggle room – a one in 20 shot of shooting a theory down.

When temperatures rise or sea levels increase or coral is bleached, a scientists can say it is most likely caused by Global Warming but they won’t call it proof. In turn the sceptic will call this "inconclusive".

Now the numbers are inching back above 50 per cent, a condition necessary for winning the broader political battle. While our numbers cannot determine the reason for this shift, a few factors weigh in: the recent release of the Multi-Party Climate Committee’s interim report; the sequence of extreme weather events over the summer and maybe, just maybe, a growing scepticism of the deniers.

Q. Do you agree that there is fairly conclusive evidence that climate change is happening and caused by human activity or do you believe that the evidence is still not in and we may just be witnessing a normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate which happens from time to time?

Total

Nov 09

Dec 10

Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity

52%

53%

45%

We are just witnessing a normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate

36%

34%

36%

Don’t know

12%

13%

19%

There are also some other hidden minefields for the Opposition in these numbers. While Labor and Green voters are solidly behind the science; the Coalition have a split constituency, best summed up by the fact that Nick Minchin and Malcolm Turnbull sit in the same party room.

Total

Labor

Liberal

Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity

52%

71%

34%

We are just witnessing a normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate

36%

20%

54%

Don’t know

12%

8%

12%

While the focus is on fighting a big new tax on everything, the groups can remain united. But switch to a debate on the science and the fault-lines will emerge as viciously as they did when Turnbull was rolled as leader.

In July anti-climate science peddlers are bringing noted denier Lord Monckton to Australia a point at which these differences will be put in stark relief – the moment when Tony Abbott the man who believes that climate change is both "real" and "crap" will start to feel the splinters.

All of this will be a mere prelude to next year's 20th Anniversary Rio Earth Summit where the world’s nations will front up to explain why they haven’t met the targets to reduce emissions they said they would meet and to hear more evidence about why action is more urgent than ever.

At this point the strength of the Coalition "no action" campaign could become a political liability and a "yes to action" campaign could begin to make some kind of sense.

All of which should provide a few clues to those seeking to mobilise public opinion: focus on the science first, second and third - and then start talking about the impact on our carbon-exposed economy if we wait for the rest of the world to act first.

High profile actors are always going to grab headlines; but it will be the less glamorous set of voices, the voices of people who wear lab coats and aren’t into grandstanding, that will be critical to the outcome of this debate.